Dispositions Other Than By Published Opinion | Feb. 8, 2023
Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
Division I
Division II
120,135 (Companion with Case No. 120,884) — In re the Marriage of: Cora Ann Hubert, Petitioner/Appellee, vs. Cory Drew Hubert, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from an order of the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Gregory J. Ryan, Trial Judge. Cory Drew Hubert (Father) disputes the amount of attorney fees the trial court awarded him in this divorce proceeding pursuant to four separate statutes authorizing such awards under the circumstances presented. Cora Ann Hubert (Mother) was ordered to pay him attorney fees, but the trial court reduced the fees after considering the parties’ respective means and property. Father appeals this order and the trial court’s denial of his motion to reconsider that ruling. The question here is whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in reducing the amount of attorney fees awarded based on the parties’ respective means and property. After review, we conclude it was error to apply this additional factor in setting the award and therefore an abuse of discretion to deny Father’s motion to reconsider. We reverse and remand with directions to enter an order consistent with our Opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Opinion from the Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by WISEMAN, P.J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and HIXON, J., concur. February 2, 2023
120,250 — Blackjack Creek, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Rainbow Motors, Inc., d/b/a Brevard ruck and Auto Center, a Florida for profit corporation, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Appellant, and Foster Energy, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Third-Party Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Kay County, Hon.
David R. Bandy, Trial Judge. Defendant Rainbow Motors, Inc. d/b/a/ Brevard Truck and Auto Center (Brevard) appeals an Order dismissing Brevard’s claim against Third-Party Defendant, Foster Energy, LLC (FE), based on another action pending and improper claim splitting. Brevard also appeals a subsequent Order denying Brevard’s “Motion to Reconsider” an Order granting summary judgment to Blackjack Creek, LLC (Blackjack) on a claim for breach of contract. On review of the record, the Court finds that Brevard’s Third-Party Petition against FE arises from the same cause of action and seeks to recover damages which should be and/or are being pursued in FE’s other actions. We therefore affirm the trial court’s Order dismissing Brevard’s claims against FE. Further, we treat Brevard’s Motion to Reconsider grant of summary judgment to Blackjack as a Motion for New Trial. That Motion largely raised arguments Brevard did not present to the trial court on summary judgment, and which are contrary to its own admissions in its response to summary judgment. To the extent Brevard’s Motion to Reconsider could be read to seek reconsideration of its original response, Brevard failed to present any evidence in support of a genuine dispute of material fact precluding judgment on Blackjack’s breach of contract claim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Motion to Reconsider, and we affirm the trial court’s Order denying that Motion. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. February 2, 2023
119,438 (Consolidated with Case No. 119,524; Companion with Case Nos. 119,585, 120,073 and 120,225) — American Homeowner Preservation, an Ohio limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, vs. Villas at Stonelake, LLC, Tuscany Village Apartments, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; The Survivor’s Trust Created Under the Antonelli Family Trust Date February 8, 1998, and John Antonelli, Defendants/Appellees, and Tuscany Village, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and Ivest Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Additional Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Winford Mike Warren and Hon. Sheila Stinson, Trial Judges. American Homeowner Preservation, LLC (AHP) appeals the trial court’s order granting The Survivor’s Trust Created Under the Antonelli Family Trust, dated February 8, 1998 (Trust) judgment of foreclosure on the mortgage covering the subject property against AHP and Villas at Stonelake, LLC (Villas) and the Order Confirming Sheriff’s Sale. AHP also appeals certain provisions in the order granting default judgment against Ivest Properties, LLC (Ivest). The main issue is whether the trial court erred by finding AHP was not entitled to enforce a mortgage against an apartment complex owned by Villas (nor guarantees made by Villas and Tuscany Village Apartments, LLC), and instead allowing the Trust to foreclose its mortgage on the same apartment complex. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the Trust judgment. We also reverse the order confirming sheriff’s sale and affirm the default judgment granted against Ivest in part and reverse in part. We remand this case for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. February 6, 2023
119,585 (Companion with Case Nos. 119,438, 120,073 and 120,225) — American Homeowner Preservation, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. Villas at Stonelake, LLC; Tuscany Village Apartments, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability Company; and The Survivor’s Trust Created Under the Antonelli Family Trust Date February 8, 1998, Defendants/Appellees, and Ivest Properties, L.L.C., an Oklahoma limited liability company and Tuscany Village, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Additional Defendants, and Estate of Ronald Sydney Bullen and Lakeside Village Properties, Inc., Interest Parties/Appellants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Winford Mike Warren, Trial Judge. The Estate of Ronald Sydney Bullen (Estate) and Lakeside Village Properties, Inc. (Lakeside) appeal the trial court’s Journal Entry denying their motion to intervene as third-party plaintiffs in the underlying case. Given the limited basis upon which Lakeside and Estate sought to intervene and our decision in the companion appeal, Case No. 119,438, we find there is no effective review available for the present case. Accordingly, the present appeal must be, and is hereby, dismissed as moot. DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. February 6, 2023
120,073 (Companion with Case Nos. 119,438, 119,585, and 120,225) — The Estate of Ronald Sydney Bullen and Lakeside Village Properties, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellants, vs. Villas at Stonelake, LLC, Tuscany Village Apartments, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, The Survivor’s Trust Created Under the Antonelli Family Trust Date February 8, 1998, and John Antonelli, an individual, Defendants/Appellees, and Tuscany Village, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Additional Defendant. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Nikki K. Kirkpatrick and Hon. C. Brent Dishman, Trial Judges. The Estate of Ronald Sydney Bullen (the Estate) and Lakeside Village Properties, Inc. (Lakeside) appeal the Journal Entry granting the motions to dismiss filed by Villas at Stonelake, LLC (Villas); Tuscany Village Apartments, LLC (TVA); the Survivor’s Trust Created Under the Antonelli Family Trust dated February 8, 1998 (the Trust); and John Antonelli (Antonelli) (collectively “Defendants”). The Estate and Lakeside also appeal the Journal Entry awarding Defendants attorneys’ fees and costs. Significantly, in the companion appeal, Case No. 119,438, we reversed the trial court’s Journal Entry finding that the Plaintiff there, American Homeowner Preservation (AHP), was not entitled to enforce its interests and remanded for the court to determine, inter alia, whether the Estate Mortgage or Trust Mortgage has priority. Additionally, in companion appeal, Case No. 119,585, we dismissed Lakeside and the Estate’s appeal of the denial of their motion to intervene as moot because they sought to intervene based solely on the trial court’s decision that AHP was not entitled to enforce its interests in the Estate Mortgage and the guarantees. In view of these decisions, we reverse the trial court’s Journal Entry granting Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the present case based on principles of claim-splitting and res judicata and remand the case for further proceedings. REVERSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. February 6, 2023
120,225 (Consolidated with Case No. 120,227) — American Homeowner Preservation, an Ohio limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs. Villas at Stonelake, LLC, Tuscany Village Apartments, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company; The Survivor’s Trust Created Under the Antonelli Family Trust Date February 8, 1998, and John Antonelli, Defendants/Appellants, and Tuscany Village, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and Ivest Properties, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, Additional Defendants. Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, Hon. Sheila Stinson, Trial Judge. Defendants argue they were the prevailing parties in the underlying case, and therefore, were entitled to their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to certain statutes. However, in Case No. 119,438, we reversed the underlying judgment and remanded for further proceedings as fully set forth in that Opinion. Given such reversal, there is no judgment on which to premise an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, Defendants’ challenge to the trial court’s post-judgment denial of their motions for attorneys’ fees and costs, along with the motion to reconsider such denial, is moot. DISMISSED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. February 6, 2023
119,781 – Luke Anthony Moorman, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Sonya Mae Roberts, Respondent/Appellee. Petitioner, Luke Anthony Moorman, appeals the district court’s Decree of Paternity designating Respondent, Sonya Mae Roberts, as the primary physical custodian of the parties’ minor child, E.M. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we find the district court’s decision designating Roberts as the primary physical custodian of the minor child, E.M., is not in the best interests of E.M. and is against the weight of the evidence presented at trial. The district court’s designation of Roberts as the primary physical custodian of E.M. as stated in the Decree of Paternity is reversed and remanded to the district court with instructions to designate Moorman as the primary physical custodian of E.M. and to determine visitation for Roberts and child support. This matter is remanded to the district court for proceedings consistent with this Opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; WISEMAN, P.J., and BARNES, V.C.J., concur. February 6, 2023
119,964 — In re the Marriage of: Darrell Paul Dougherty, Petitioner/Appellant, vs. Chelsie Christine Dougherty, Respondent/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Payne County, Hon. Michael A. Kulling, Trial Judge. Darrell Paul Dougherty (Father) appeals the trial court’s Order denying his motions to vacate and for new trial filed after the court terminated the parties’ joint custody over their minor child and awarded sole custody to Chelsie Christine Dougherty (Mother). Father alleges the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motions to vacate and for new trial. Essentially, Father argues he was entitled to have the judgment vacated and to receive a new trial because he alleges the various witnesses who testified at the trial about the various DHS investigations were untruthful. However, the issues of the circumstances surrounding the initiation of the DHS referrals, the investigations that followed, and the results thereof, were fully examined at trial, and Father’s motions offered nothing new for the trial court’s consideration that was not already addressed at trial or could have not been discovered with reasonable diligence beforehand. Based on our review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the Order. AFFIRMED. Opinion from Court of Civil Appeals, Division II, by HIXON, J.; BARNES, V.C.J., and WISEMAN, P.J., concur. February 6, 2023
Division III
120,091 — Michael David Falk, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, V. Eva Mae Woods, an individual, Defendant/Appellee. Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Honorable Caroline Wall, Trial Judge. In this case involving a dispute between neighbors, Plaintiff/Appellant Michael Falk alleged Defendant/Appellee Eva Woods pulled in front of him through the intersection leading to their homes necessitating him to lay down his motorcycle to prevent a collision. Falk sued Woods claiming personal injuries to his leg. Following a four‑day jury trial, judgment was entered for Woods. Now, on appeal, Falk alleges eighteen errors including: that a prospective juror should have been removed for cause because he showed reticence in his ability to compute damages for pain and suffering during voir dire; Falk should have been permitted to examine Woods on the existence of her liability insurance to show bias; counsel for Woods committed gross misconduct by, among other things, continuing to introduce and discuss evidence that the court determined was not admissible; the court committed error when it declined to grant summary judgment or a directed verdict on liability for the accident; the court instructed the jury on a non‑party’s alleged involvement in the accident and refused to instruct the jury with a blue verdict form for the plaintiff; and the jury’s verdict was against the greater weight of the evidence. After review of the record and applicable law, we find no reversible error and AFFIRM the jury’s verdict in favor of Woods. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. February 02, 2023
120,690 — Kevin Cochran, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellant, V. Aaron Dean Crawford, an individual; Aaron Crawford Trucking, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; Hallmark Specialty Insurance, a Domestic Insurance Company, and Cardinal FG Company, a Foreign Corporation, Defendants/Appellees. Appeal from the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma. Honorable Mark R. Campbell, Trial Judge. Plaintiff/Appellant Kevin Cochran (Driver) was injured in a vehicle collision with a commercial tractor trailer on the highway. He sued the owner of the trailer, Cardinal FG Company (Cardinal); the company transporting the trailer, Aaron Crawford Trucking, LLC (Trucking Company); and the truck driver, Aaron Dean Crawford (Truck Driver). The trial court granted summary judgments to Cardinal, Trucking Company, and Truck Driver. After de novo review, we find Driver may maintain an action for negligence per se based on federal motor carrier regulations. Because multiple questions of material fact exist, summary judgment was improper. We REVERSE AND REMAND. Opinion by MITCHELL, C.J.; PRINCE, P.J., and BELL, J., concur. February 02, 2023
120,305 — Jaclyn Farley and H.J., a Minor, Petitioners/Appellees, V. Casey Dover, Respondent/Appellant. Appeal from the District Court of McCurtain County, Oklahoma. Honorable Kenneth R. Farley, Trial Judge. Petitioners/Appellees, Jaclyn Farley and H.J., a minor child, filed for a protective order against Respondent/Appellant, Casey Dover, pursuant to the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act, 22 O.S. 2021 §§60-60.18 (Act). The trial court determined the evidence supported a finding of stalking as defined in §60.1(9) and granted Petitioners’ petition. On appeal, Respondent asserts the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a protective order because Petitioners’ failed to prove all the statutory elements of stalking. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the protective order and AFFIRM. Opinion by BELL, J.; MITCHELL, C.J., and Prince, P.J., concur. February 3, 2023
Division IV